HELEN
Hi Ibanez!
Neandertals were as fully human as you or I are.
However, in the interests of evolutionary interpretation, here is the
following:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-115198,00.html
MONDAY APRIL 16 2001 Redheads 'are Neanderthal' BY A CORRESPONDENT RED
hair may be the genetic legacy of Neanderthals, scientists believe.
Researchers at the John Radcliffe Institute of Molecular Medicine in
Oxford say that the so-called "ginger gene" which gives people red hair,
fair skin and freckles could be up to 100,000 years old. They claim that
their discovery points to the gene having originated in Neanderthal man
who lived in Europe for 200,000 years before Homo sapien settlers, the
ancestors of modern man, arrived from Africa about 40,000 years ago.
Rosalind Harding, the research team leader, said: "The gene is certainly
older than 50,000 years and it could be as old as 100,000 years. "An
explanation is that it comes from Neanderthals." It is estimated that at
least 10 per cent of Scots have red hair and a further 40 per cent carry
the gene responsible, which could account for their once fearsome
reputation as fighters. Neanderthals have been characterised as migrant
hunters and violent cannibals who probably ate most of their meat raw.
They were taller and stockier than Homo sapiens, but with shorter limbs,
bigger faces and noses, receding chins and low foreheads. The two
species overlapped for a period of time and the Oxford research appears
to suggests that they must have successfully interbred for the "ginger
gene" to survive. Neanderthals became extinct about 28,000 years ago,
the last dying out in southern Spain and southwest France.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As a creationist, I do find myself laughing a bit at some of the above.
In Israel we have Neandertals and modern humans buried quite close to
each other. And I have no doubt there was interbreeding.
Today, if you look around you, you will find that we tend to associate
various characteristics with various peoples. Very tall and black?
Zulu. Small boned, sallow skin, almond eyes? Chinese. No they are not
all like that, but we associate that set of characteristics with each of
them for a reason! And yet there is no genetic reason at all why a Zulu
could not marry a Chinese, is there? What we class as Neandertal was a
group of people who had a ‘typical’ bone structure and height. The idea
that they were cannibals, or ate their meat raw, or any other ridiculous
thing is pure fantasy. We don’t know if they were fierce or gentle!
Here are some interesting references and discussions regarding
Neandertals that might interest you:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200101/0153.html http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/mining.htm
both of the above are from a man who is NOT a creationist!
http://www.jezuici.krakow.pl/sj/lenart/pal01/
An email, over a year ago, from Royal Truman, a chemist, had this to say
about Neandertals:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The "stu.pid, ape-like Neandertal" stereotype got started thanks
to a bone-disease the first specimen found last century had. The newer
view is that they had musical talents, built tools and sophisticated
weapons, appreciated art and had an understanding of the Divine. This is
based on remains found buried with them.
The question which arises is where does the Christian community put them
with respect to the biblical creation report. One view is that they were
a non-human race without souls which preceded the Adamic. The other is
that they are a post-Flood portion of the human race, living under
ice-age conditions.
A scientifically meaningful molecular study would involve as an absolute
minimum multiple specimens of both Neandertal and homo sapiens sapiens
from the same apparent time period, using the same, non "hot spot"
portions of mtDNA. A key consideration is how one would build the
typical, or reference sequence: with ALL members, or only using members
of one of the sub-populations, as was done in the Nature report. (If I
measure the height of 100 adult males, and DEFINE this probability
distribution as that of HUMAN, then one or more female specimens are
less likely to be defined as human also, than had the original
distribution been defined using male AND female members).
A quick check to test our ideas would involve using some modern, living
specimens of several small, human, isolated sub-populations, preferably
which have undergone a genetic bottle-neck at some point in the past,
and compare the mtDNA of many members with the over-all world
population. "Stone-age" tribes in the Amazons or Papua New Guinea would
be candidates. We just might find that some of these genetically
isolated sub-populations of the same race are also very far from the
world-wide average, saving us a lot of unnecessary and ambiguous work
using ancient, chemically decomposed molecules.
If one of the clearly human mothers with far from the reference mtDNA
sequence today (and many are further removed from the average than that
single Neandertal specimen) were to produce offspring which become
genetically isolated (geographically, etc) then sub-groups which appear
unusual can certainly be
produced, and very quickly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This past summer I was able to attend a conference in Ohio where Dr.
David DeWitt, a biologist from Liberty University gave a presentation on
Neandertal –modern human comparisons. In checking the DNA comparisons,
he found something interesting. He found that the vast majority of the
differences which were used to claim Neandertals were not related to
modern humans were differences which occurred in what are called ‘hot
spots’ in the genetic material. Hot spots are those areas known to
mutate more quickly, and they often mutate in a back and forth manner
(called mutating and back-mutating). When Dave removed these hot spots
from the analysis, there was no doubt at all that Neandertals were fully
human as you and I know human.
